Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 90118 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 23:08:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 23:08:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 17504 invoked by uid 97); 1 Feb 2002 23:06:58 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 17482 invoked by uid 97); 1 Feb 2002 23:06:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 17452 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 23:06:57 -0000 Message-ID: <3C5B2026.3080005@apache.org> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 18:09:26 -0500 From: Berin Loritsch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Paulo Gaspar wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org] >>Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:21 PM >>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List >>Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release >> >>... >> >>Avalon is no more or less coherent than Commons. >> >>... >> > > Even if you say so, I keep thinking that Avalon is more > coherent than the commons in many respects. > > And I also think this is one of the reasons that makes it > interesting to have both around. I guess the coherency perceived is that all the components in Avalon's Excalibur (since this is closest to Commons) all have a purpose towards some level of server programming. Some were born from Matt Welsh's SEDA concepts (those are relatively new), some were born from Cocoon, and yet others were born from Phoenix and JAMES. We borrow from our users, and our users donate to us. It's a good synergy. That is where our coherency lies. I think Commons has a more diverse audience, and a different perspective on things. For instance, the Avalon community is sold on IOC and SOC (Inversion of Control and Separation of Concerns). Many commons committers have their reservations about those patterns. Those patterns do influence all of our code. Even the stuff that can be ripped out of Excalibur and used completely apart from Avalon has those patterns in mind when they were designed. That is why you will rarely see static factories for a piece in the system--everything is designed to be externally managed. I suppose there is another point of coherency. But I'm just talking now, so I'll shut up. -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: